trayvan martin

londonfog

Well-Known Member
~grin~


My opinions in re this case are that the following items are established:

Zimmermann pursued Martin after being advised that it would be best if he did not do so. That saddles Z with a clear count of bad judgment imo.
Zimmermann shot Trayvon Martin dead.
Trayvon was unarmed.
A key witness is unavailable.

The following items are what i consider likely but not established.

Zimmermann pursued Trayvon and was pressing a confrontation.
He had absolutely no need to do so.
Testimonies are sparse, internally and externally inconsistent.
I suspect Z's head injuries to have been inconsequential, but to take it further I would have to trust the judgment of the treating individual (EMT?) at the crime scene. And that first bit of video did seem to show that Z ad a clean head. What to make of this? It's possible that a) M bopped Z's head on the ground, or that 2) Z bopped himself before the police arrived in order to back his account. I have no way of excluding either scenario.

The following are question marks to me.

Did Z corner M?
Did Z keep the gun concealed until the end?
What words were exchanged?
Who made the first aggressive move? (Likely Z in pressing the chase, but this is not established beyond doubt.)
Whose, and what was the second?
When things got physical, who engaged whom?
Who really screamed, and what?
It could break either way imo.
That Z would corner and attack M is the sentimentally appealing choice, but to me that is a good reason to redouble my caution.
That M would pre-emptively rush Z is also not to be excluded, but not to be assumed either.
The evidence and testimony i have seen do not allow any conclusions beyond the sentimental, based on our remote third-person read of the characters of the principals. While I accept that Z's is looking pretty damned bad, that should not influence the criminal case. That should be decided on proven actions, and info on those is far too thin for me to wear either camp's T-shirt quite yet.

Away from the criminal case, am I disgusted with Z's manifest lack of judgment? Oh hell yeah. Am i pissed that a young man died for no apparent reason? That too. Am I darkly amused by Z's thrashing when asked the hard questions? definitely. But those are not to point in the end. The trial will be interesting but it's far from open&shut, especially if Dershowitz takes a serious interest. I do not doubt his ability to shred the prosecution. cn
Thanks for sharing your honest neutral position.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
I like the breakdown of this...Can't wait to see what the prosecutor does when its her turn. Zimmerman own words will be his doom.

If you disagree with anything..Please note the time that it happens so we all can see your point.

[youtube]k07wZIU1siM[/youtube]
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Why are you trying to make this about me? It's not and I won't go there. I stand by my previous statement...........Most if not all of us could easily be painted in a negative light by someone with the inclination to do so.
i'm not trying to make it about you per se, but you did say this negative portrayal could happen to any of us. but do you have a history of violence and temper and getting involved like zimm does?

last time i got in a fight, i was 11. not an act of violence in my life since then. last time i even dealt with the law was over 10 years ago when i got a DUI as a young, dumb buck.

Is stalking one of the charges? Forgive me, I've been busy and am not completely up to date on all of the listed charges.
it's not, but it could be. he met the definition of stalking with his actions that night.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Is stalking one of the charges? Forgive me, I've been busy and am not completely up to date on all of the listed charges.
Stalking one of the charges? LMAO hell no, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to get a stalking charge from any sane jury, so the only people who would say he were stalking are the loonies.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
last time i got in a fight, i was 11. not an act of violence in my life since then. last time i even dealt with the law was over 10 years ago when i got a DUI as a young, dumb buck.
So, by your own admission you are a child beater and a drunk who drives and cares not for the lives of others, Good to know who we are dealing with.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
the only thing i would exclude is zimm injuring himself to back his account, too many witnesses there too soon to be remotely possible in my judgment.

the part that i really doubt is that zimm was crying for help. he said he was being suffocated, which would preclude crying for help. and the cries for help just sound too agonizing to me. he had to know everyone heard those cries for help, so he has every reason to claim them as his own.

my best guess at what happened is that martin got away, kept talking on the phone. zimm follows him, stops to conclude his call with dispatch, then goes looking for martin again. finds martin again, martin asks "why are you following me?", zimm responds with "what are you doing here?" and tries to detain martin. a small scuffle ensues with martin landing a blow or two (the single scrape on martin's knuckle pretty much rules out the 25-30 haymakers zimm claims happened). zimm, after taking a hit or two, reaches for his gun and holds martin at gunpoint. martin starts screaming for help, and perhaps even makes a play for the gun (or zimm, in a state of over zealous hyper alert mode perceives that to happen). shot is fired, then we all know the rest from there.

that's all consistent with the evidence, the only speculation is after "what are you doing here?" until the shot is fired, a 1 minute or so period.

from what i've read, self defense cases hinge heavily on the judgment and the credibility of the person defending. zimm has neither going for him. his judgment that night was WAAAAAAAY off. he never thought to identify himself given multiple chances to do so. he admits he kept looking for martin after the call to dispatch was over. he straddled the kid after putting a bullet straight through his heart thinking he was a threat still. not good judgment. his credibility is zero at this point, he has so many different and wildly varying accounts of what happened.

anyhoo, should be interesting to watch the trial. we'll need a lot of popcorn.
You could be right ... it makes sense that he might not have had the presence of mind to exploit the narrow window of opportunity between shooting and the arrival of witnesses. This is pure speculation, but that would require a judgment and sang froid that aren't typical of his previous behaviors.

Thanks for sharing your honest neutral position.
Thank you for accepting it as presented. cn
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
"Neighborhood watch" means watch your neighborhood, not watch me shoot your ass! Just sayin'...
Does it also mean you just stand in one place and if the suspect disappears out of view you just give up and go about your day too?

Hint to all you young people out there. Don't wear a hoodie in the dark, in the rain and then when someone watches you, start running. Nothing says "I did something wrong and am trying to get away" as strongly as running away does, little tidbit that might help you in the future.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Does it also mean you just stand in one place and if the suspect disappears out of view you just give up and go about your day too?
they're called the 'neighborhood watch', not the 'neighborhood follow and detain at gunpoint' you freeloading plagiarizer.
 

afrawfraw

Well-Known Member
Does it also mean you just stand in one place and if the suspect disappears out of view you just give up and go about your day too?

Hint to all you young people out there. Don't wear a hoodie in the dark, in the rain and then when someone watches you, start running. Nothing says "I did something wrong and am trying to get away" as strongly as running away does, little tidbit that might help you in the future.
It means watch. Watching requires a camera, at best. Armed patrol is armed patrol. There are bonded companies available for hire. Professionals. Better yet, install some exterior cameras. Naw, you're right. Questionable people ill equipped to defend against teenagers walking around with guns is better...:roll:
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I resist the idea that running in a hoodie in the dark should be allowed to arbitrarily be designated Suspicious Activity. cn
 

afrawfraw

Well-Known Member
Does it also mean you just stand in one place and if the suspect disappears out of view you just give up and go about your day too?

Hint to all you young people out there. Don't wear a hoodie in the dark, in the rain and then when someone watches you, start running. Nothing says "I did something wrong and am trying to get away" as strongly as running away does, little tidbit that might help you in the future.
So if I approach you with a LaCoste shirt and a cane, I wouldn't raise your suspicion? Very odd, but good to know. ;)
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
It means watch. Watching requires a camera, at best. Armed patrol is armed patrol. There are bonded companies available for hire. Professionals. Better yet, install some exterior cameras. Naw, you're right. Questionable people ill equipped to defend against teenagers walking around with guns is better...:roll:
It's my understanding that he wasn't on patrol, and had a permit to carry that weapon. He wasn't violating any terms of his neighborhood watch charter that I am aware of. I don't believe it says that members legally able to do so can't carry a weapon when not on duty.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
I resist the idea that running in a hoodie in the dark should be allowed to arbitrarily be designated Suspicious Activity. cn
Nobody wants to be "judged" on appearance, but that's EXACTLY what the vast majority of us do: judge others on their appearance! I don't think it was just that he was "running in a hoodie in the dark" either. "Sketchy behavior" is easily recognizable by many people. That said, people often mistake peoples appearance and actions for something it isn't. It's unfortunate, but it happens, as apparently happened here.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
It's my understanding that he wasn't on patrol, and had a permit to carry that weapon. He wasn't violating any terms of his neighborhood watch charter that I am aware of. I don't believe it says that members legally able to do so can't carry a weapon when not on duty.
in that case, he was totally right to stalk an innocent kid in the dark.
 
Top